get_domain_flow_detail

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that fuzzy matching is supported for flow_name, describes the return content (entry point, ordered steps, step summaries, cross-referenced code nodes), and implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It could add more about pagination or error behavior, but for a query tool it provides solid context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well organized: a one-sentence purpose, a usage section with sibling differentiation, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy, and the most important info is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has only two parameters, an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how to get broader context via siblings, and the semantics of the key parameter. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structure, and the description covers everything else needed for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaningful value for flow_name through examples ('SAGA Xử lý Lương', 'init payroll') and explicitly notes fuzzy matching. It also explains project as simply 'Project name', which is minimal, but the main parameter is well covered. This largely compensates for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with a specific verb phrase 'Deep-dive into a specific business flow' and precisely lists what is returned: entry point, ordered steps, and linked code nodes. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools get_domain_overview and get_domain_detail, making its unique role clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It directly states when to use the tool ('Use this for detailed understanding of a single flow's implementation') and names alternatives for broader overviews ('For an overview of all domains/flows, use get_domain_overview or get_domain_detail'). This gives explicit when and when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.